is anyone taking this seriously?

[rottingteeth]

is anyone out there taking homosexuality seriously? is anyone trying to figure out what it means in the grand scheme of things? in evolutionary terms? is it really a flaw or a defect, as it appears to me? should it be perfected or ultimately eradicated? is it of any use to humanity?

I post this because I am terrible at finding the information I'm looking for. are there any good books on this subject that any of you could recommend? or do you have any thoughts you could share?

I'm not biased one way or the other. I'm a gay man, I'm not PROUD of it, but I'm not ashamed of it either. what I'm looking for is a reasonable conclusion to this "issue", even if that conclusion is that a conclusion cannot be made (which would mean that it is neither helpful nor hurtful, and therefore should only be perfected).

if I were to find a reasonable argument against homosexuality, I mean besides "god says its wrong its in the bible!!" (he didn't, it's not, check your shit. I recommend books by bishop john shelby spong, two in particular, in which he explains the true meaning behind the scripture. at least, in his opinion, based on research), well, if such an argument is found, does that mean I'm going to end my relationship with my boyfriend, and stop having sex with him? no, of course not. and that should not be expected of any gays, as it would be emotionally and psychologically hurtful to us as individuals. but I would actively participate in steps to eliminate homosexuality for future generations...why fight for something that should be destroyed?

[Shadow]

Hiya,

Hokay ... first up, I don't think there is an answer per se - or, perhaps more accurately, I don't think there is an answer that we can understand, or would ever be satisfied with knowing ... so I have satisfied myself that we are not meant to understand why we were born the way we are, or what we are here to do (or not do), as that gives me a framework within which to operate ...

... one of my (many ) bugbears is people that try to clobber other people with a one-sided approach to morality ... I mean really as if waving a book written thousands of years ago and shouting at the top of your lungs is going to somehow cause somebody to burst into flames simply for being the way they were born ... where do some people get their ideas !?

Ultimately I think if people, either as individuals or collectively, are able to stop and think things through, they will come to the conclusion that ultimately nobody is without sin - everybody breaks the law, everybody does wrong by other people, but that is not to say that everybody is bad. I know loads of really, REALLY good people, and so for me to think even for a heartbeat that any one of them should be damned simply because of their sexuality, makes absolutely no sense to me at all, whatsoever.

Quite often these things are a question of perspective.

... so to me you come across (with respect) as something of a sexual agnostic as it were ... insofar as you're open to the prospect that homosexuality might BE some kind of genetic blip, or evolutionary sidestep, but you want proof ...

Unfortunately, I don't think you will ever find it because, as I say, I don't believe we can ever fully understand it.

What is most important is that which you already do understand, which is that being homosexual doesn't make you better or worse than anybody else out there, and that you are no more or less a man, and no more or less a HUMAN, for acting in accordance with how you were born ...

So my advice, hoping I'm not sounding preachy, is to take heart and be as happy as you can be just being yourself - nobody has a right to damn you for that, and anybody that thinks otherwise you can send my way for me to give them a thrashing ...

.

xx

!?!?! Shadow !?!?!

[marshlander]

Hi, rottingteeth, and welcome to the site ... even if your name gives me the shivers

I suspect we are going to disagree on the fundamentals here. You appear to believe that there is a "grand scheme of things". I lean toward a more Darwinian point of view, namely that things happen. In that sense everything might be classed as a flaw (using your term), or perhaps more accurately as an experiment. Some experiments just have characteristics allowing them to reproduce. It may be that we need to be able to reproduce in order to perpetuate the species, but why should perpetuating the human race be in itself judged as a moral absolute?

I feel that my humanity is far better informed by diversity than by conformity. For this reason alone I would fight any move you might make to eradicate homosexuality. There are plenty of breeders in the world for those who want to keep the human species going for a while longer. It sounds as though you are afraid of difference where others would aspire to embrace and learn from it. You try explaining to a room full of deaf people that deafness is a handicap that you are going to eliminate and see what kind of a response you get! The problem with difference is not so often the condition itself, but the attitude of others towards it.

Thanks for raising an interesting subject.

[fjp999]

[COLOR="Purple"]rt, I find your post so engrossing... so odd... I really dont understand how you can say you are not biased with many of the conclusions you present "a flaw" "a defect" "eradicated" "not PROUD" " would actively participate in steps to eliminate homosexuality for future generations" "should be destroyed". Yes you present some of those as questions but seems you have made up your mind and maybe you will find answers in the studies the Nazis did. But I prefer to focus on an interesting few positives you present and wonder what you mean by "should only be perfected". I wonder what one would consider the perfect homosexual?

But I must say that your returning post has really made me want to say "try to relax my friend" Best of luck in your journey. May it lead to happiness.[/COLOR]

[fredv3b]

Rottingteeth,

A very interesting question, to which I have 3 short philosophic replies.

1. I would echo Marshlander, I do not think that there is a 'grand scheme of things' just the rich, yet hap-hazard, tapestry of life.

2. In order to answer your question properly we must define what exactly we mean by homosexuality.

3. If we are not careful we can end up believing that we should eradicate anything and everything short of perfection.

You try explaining to a room full of deaf people that deafness is a handicap that you are going to eliminate and see what kind of a response you get!

On the other hand, Marshy, are you suggesting that deafness is not a handicap?

[marshlander]

... On the other hand, Marshy, are you suggesting that deafness is not a handicap?

I don't know if you have had much to do with the deaf community, Fred? Many, particularly those who have never been part of the hearing world, feel that their inability to hear is not the handicap we might imagine it to be. They would argue that signing, for example, is a perfectly valid form of communication and it is undeniably true that the deaf have a richness and uniqueness in their culture that is totally absent in the hearing world. Many, not perceiving their condition to be a handicap, would resist any attempt to enforce a "cure" for many of the reasons I would refuse a "cure" (were such a thing even available) for homosexuality. Deaf people can operate pretty much to the full in a predominantly hearing world while deaf activists would demand that rather than chase cures to make them hear, the hearing should make more of an effort to learn signing and deaf customs.

This goes to the heart of what I was saying about a condition being more of a problem for those who don't live with it. Clearly there are different issues involved for those who start out in the hearing world and, for whatever reason, lose that ability.

[fredv3b]

I have had little to do with the deaf community, but I am aware of the opinions of some, my question was directed towards you.

Many, particularly those who have never been part of the hearing world, feel that their inability to hear is not the handicap we might imagine it to be.

I have never heard of anyone who lost their hearing beyond early childhood say anything stronger than one gets used to it and learns to function despite it.

it is undeniably true that the deaf have a richness and uniqueness in their culture that is totally absent in the hearing world.

I don't doubt their culture is rich and unique, however are there not are a wide variety of rich and unique hearing cultures?

Deaf people can operate pretty much to the full in a predominantly hearing world while deaf activists would demand that rather than chase cures to make them hear, the hearing should make more of an effort to learn signing and deaf customs.

The degree to which deaf people can operate depends very much on the environment. The telephone is a normal and essential part of modern life, it causes obvious difficulties for the deaf. Learning to sign is all very well, but one can't sign whilst doing anything else with one's hands, one can't 'listen' to sign language unless one can see the signer and doesn't have to watch anything else. Speech is an extremely practical and rapid (e.g. Sir Patrick Moore) mode of communication, many workplaces would grind to a halt without it.

Has anyone heard of a blind person who claimed that blindness was not a handicap? I wonder if it is to do with the fact that the blind can communicate perfectly well with the sighted, on a face-to-face basis, so have never really developed a 'blind culture'.

The difference between deafness and homosexuality is this, I can do everything a heterosexual can, I just don't have the same desire to.

[marshlander]

... I don't doubt their culture is rich and unique, however are there not are a wide variety of rich and unique hearing cultures?

Of course, but that isn't what I thought we were discussing

The degree to which deaf people can operate depends very much on the environment. The telephone is a normal and essential part of modern life, it causes obvious difficulties for the deaf. Learning to sign is all very well, but one can't sign whilst doing anything else with one's hands, one can't 'listen' to sign language unless one can see the signer and doesn't have to watch anything else. Speech is an extremely practical and rapid (e.g. Sir Patrick Moore) mode of communication, many workplaces would grind to a halt without it.

I appreciate what you are saying, but that is such a hearing-centred view of the world! Coming back to the topic of this thread it sounds a lot like the majority heterosexual population are perfectly at liberty to demand we conform to their "norms" because it is the way most people do things and is consequently far more convenient.

Has anyone heard of a blind person who claimed that blindness was not a handicap? I wonder if it is to do with the fact that the blind can communicate perfectly well with the sighted, on a face-to-face basis, so have never really developed a 'blind culture'.

I don't know the answer to this one, Fred. I have not had dealings with groups of people who live daily with visual impairment.

The difference between deafness and homosexuality is this, I can do everything a heterosexual can, I just don't have the same desire to.

Again, a very hearing-centric point of view. Tell that to Evelyn Glennie!

[fredv3b]

Just continuing to play devil's advocate....

I appreciate what you are saying, but that is such a hearing-centred view of the world! Coming back to the topic of this thread it sounds a lot like the majority heterosexual population are perfectly at liberty to demand we conform to their "norms" because it is the way most people do things and is consequently far more convenient.

Its difficult for me to not have a hearing-centred point of view, being a hearing person in a hearing world. However you do have a genuine point, to what extent should a majority be expected to adapt to accommodate a minority? Speech is a part of everyday life, we use it to communicate with anyone and everyone, it is quite a big (and expensive) change to construct a world where speech can easily be avoided. Romantic and sexual relations are much less universal, the great majority of heterosexuals do not have them with the great majority of other heterosexuals, only a select few. It is therefore no great problem for heterosexuals to allow us to have romantic and sexual relations with each other.

[marshlander]

Just continuing to play devil's advocate....

Its difficult for me to not have a hearing-centred point of view, being a hearing person in a hearing world. However you do have a genuine point, to what extent should a majority be expected to adapt to accommodate a minority? Speech is a part of everyday life, we use it to communicate with anyone and everyone, it is quite a big (and expensive) change to construct a world where speech can easily be avoided. Romantic and sexual relations are much less universal, the great majority of heterosexuals do not have them with the great majority of other heterosexuals, only a select few. It is therefore no great problem for heterosexuals to allow us to have romantic and sexual relations with each other.

And I'm continuing to take the bait

But, isn't this precisely where we come in? As a gay man I am not asking the majority of the population to adapt to accommodate me, merely to accept that I have a right to exist and not be considered as somehow unworthy of equal treatment. I will accommodate differences that occur in my life, although I reserve the right not to bow to some "normal" notion of sexual behaviour when no harm is being done to others.

I don't think I have met a deaf person who thinks we should avoid speech altogether; signing includes the use of words. All most of the people I have met seem to want is the same as me, to be left to get on with living life without having to deal with extra obstacles imposed through the igorance and prejudice of others.